Greater autonomy for schools leads to better academic results

Kevin Donnelly

The NSW Teachers Federation and public school advocates such as Trevor Cobbold argue that there is little, if any, evidence to support the benefits of increased school autonomy.

If true, their claims undermine the argument that choice and diversity in education, represented by autonomous government and non-government schools, is a good thing and suggest that moves around Australia to empower schools at the local level are misdirected.

But there is increasing international evidence that freeing schools from centralised and bureaucratic control is beneficial.

A 2007 paper commissioned by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development analysing the characteristics of stronger performing education systems argues that school autonomy is an important factor.

They clearly argue autonomy is beneficial when they say: ''Students perform significantly better in schools that have autonomy in process and personnel decisions.''

The 2007 OECD paper also puts the lie to claims that autonomy exacerbates disadvantage, concluding that ''there is not a single case where a policy designed to introduce accountability, autonomy, or choice in schooling benefits high-SES students to the detriment of low-SES students, ie, where the former gain but the latter suffer''. (SES refers to a student's socioeconomic status.)

A second paper, written by Eric Hanushek and Ludger Woessmann and commissioned by the US National Bureau of Economic Research, also argues that autonomy helps to strengthen education. ''Students perform significantly better in schools that have autonomy,'' the authors write.

A third paper, involving researchers at Britain's University of Buckingham and published in 2008, also argues that one of the reasons non-government schools achieve such strong results is because decisions are made at a local level. The authors argue non-government schools generally outperform government schools because such schools enjoy ''more autonomy than do those in state schools''.

Such is the growing consensus that school autonomy leads to stronger results that a 2008 Australian budget paper, Statement 4, Boosting Australia's Productive Capacity: the Role of Infrastructure and Skills, argues school autonomy is ''likely to have significant positive impacts on student performance''.

The benefits of freeing schools from centralised control are also endorsed in Britain's The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010. ''Across the world,'' it argues, ''the case for the benefits of school autonomy has been established beyond doubt.''

While not directly addressing the impact of autonomy, Gary Marks from the Australian Council for Educational Research has also argued that non-government schools consistently outperform government schools in literacy and numeracy tests and year 12 results - even after adjusting for a student's socioeconomic status.

Implied in this is that school autonomy is beneficial since Catholic and independent schools, unlike government schools, have greater freedom over areas such as staffing, curriculum focus and academic environment.

It is true that some studies are equivocal about the benefits of school autonomy, as Cobbold noted in the Herald this week. A 2010 paper titled Markets in Education notes that while there are some positive effects related to a more market driven approach to education, they ''are very modest in size''.

But what Cobbold fails to acknowledge is that the same paper suggests one of the reasons the evidence is less than clear is because schools, as a result of government micromanagement, are not truly autonomous.

''Complicating the ability to give a clear answer is the fact that many policies attempting to introduce market mechanisms in education do so simultaneously with increased accountability,'' it says.

Australian schools are being micromanaged in this way and all roads lead to Canberra - best illustrated by the Rudd/Gillard education revolution, where schools are forced to follow government dictates in national curriculum, national testing and teacher standards, even though the rhetoric is about autonomy.

Positive student outcomes are not just related to test results. Pioneering work in the US by James Coleman argues that empowering schools at a local level leads to increased social cohesion and stability too.

In the Catholic school system, it is known as subsidiarity - where decisions are made at the level of those most affected by them. Subsidiarity strengthens community ties and values such as reciprocity and a commitment to the common good.

Dr Kevin Donnelly is director of the Melbourne-based Education Standards Institute and taught for 18 years in Victorian secondary schools.

17 comments

Kevin D refers to increasing international evidence that school autonomy delivers better student results – but the evidence he actually quotes is decreasing and becoming quite dated. The 2007 paper commissioned by the OECD is overtaken by analysis of PISA 2009 which doesn’t discover much of a relationship at all between autonomy and achievement. His preferred source is Woessmann but the latter’s work has been overtaken by time. The Gary Marks research must be close to a decade old.

Kevin can bring himself up-to-date by looking up the NAPLAN scores on My School. Even considering flaws in the measures these indicate few student outcome differences between types of schools ownership and management.

It is easy to get the impression that, when it comes to evidence to back his ideology, Kevin is running around in ever-diminishing circles. Not a good look for a director of a “Standards Institute”.

In terms of balance and weighing up the research Trevor Cobbold (most recently available at http://www.saveourschools.com.au/choice-and-competition/school-autonomy-is-not-the-success-claimed ) is light years ahead of Donnelly. The reality is that the research concludes that school autonomy has little if any impact on student achievement.

Time to move on, Kevin.

Commenter

Chris

Date and time

June 15, 2012, 9:00AM

More cherry picking of evidence by an advocate of right wing school reform.

Why does he omit to mention the latest PISA (09) research which finds that curiculum/professional autonomy has a positive relationship with learning outcomes but resource/staffing autonomy does not have any positive relationship with learning outcomes?See http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/60/46619703.pdf

That is because right wingers want the latter type of autonomy - the right to hire and fire, local businesses and religious groups increasing their influence over schools etc. - and aren't interested in empowering teachers.

Also, you lose your argument when you cite Eric Hanushek as an expert. The cherry-picker supreme is a lifelong advocate of subjecting schooling to the capitalist free market and once contributed a chapter titled 'Schools the hardest battleground' to a Milton Friedman tribute book. (Full school autonomy is a prerequisite for Friedman's competitive education market) Hanushek's writing with Woessman cherry picks and misrepresents studies to fit a preconceived ideological view of schooling.

Honestly, the state of the schools debate and the abuse of research is a disgrace. I don't want my kids education used as a 'battleground'.

Commenter

Dan murphy

Date and time

June 15, 2012, 9:16AM

Kevin Donnelly is always predictable in his one eyed rants. Nice to quote US studies when their blind adherence to 'private good, public bad' has seen US educational results go down the gurgler.Donnelly is a mouthpiece for conservative Christian schooling. He sees the public system as akin to evil godless communism and anyone who relies on the public system are people who don't care about their children. Like all decentralisation or breaking up public bodies into little chunks, it is just a method to try to make it is easier to sell of to private interests, in Donnelly's case, religious private interests. His cherry picking of old or disproven studies shows a narrowness of understanding that should not be allowed to be pushed onto children. He and his 'Institute' are a perfect example of why the government should not subsidise private schools. What is it with pushy right wing front groups and the word 'Institute'. Are they trying to prove that the lunatics are taking over the asylum?

Commenter

GraemeF

Date and time

June 15, 2012, 9:29AM

Whilst I am in favour of some greater level of autonomy at the local level, Kevin simply has to accept that there is no compelling evidence that it actually improves student results. As to whether it strengthens communities, trust and reciprocity is also a moot point, but I am inclined to believe that, given the right circumstances, it may well do that.

Commenter

Lesm

Location

Balmain

Date and time

June 15, 2012, 10:07AM

Get with it you guys. This is 2012. All schooling should go online. So many kids have got Apps 'n I Pads with all the tricks. That's just all the kids pay attention to anyway. Online teachers, tutors and parents.GPS trackers on all kids. Cameras inside the house.All the savings on schools, staff, maintenance, transport and the early morning rush. Play in the streets at recess. Backyard cricket on the roof of the high-rise. Over the edge is out.There's gonna be a revolution.Well you know we all wanta change the world. The choice is clear- the Online way or The Teachers Federation.

Commenter

markarts@bigpond.com

Location

north coast

Date and time

June 15, 2012, 10:31AM

I agree with Kevin with one huge provision. If we are to go down the path of autonomy where principals in government schools are given the same power as private schools, then the same level of accountability must apply. ie Bad principals must be sacked immediately and the process for selecting principals must change.

Giving more power to bad principals is counter productive. At present, over here in WA, the Independent Public School model has simply empowered ruthless principals who wish to surround themsleves with sycophants and get rid of teachers (mostly Union members who wish to protect working conditions) who speak their mind. We can not partially adopt the corporate model. It will not work any other way. All or nothing, starting at the top. And whilst we're at it, how about sacking bureaucrats who don't produce results?

Commenter

doikus

Location

perth

Date and time

June 15, 2012, 10:54AM

Agree with the above - Donnelly cites a UK article claiming non-government schools out-perform because they have more autonomy. Really? It surely could not be because they have more resources, are subsidised by taxpayers and draw their pupils from higher SES families (ie. those who can afford the huge fees).

Commenter

jaro

Location

sydney

Date and time

June 15, 2012, 11:00AM

Private schools have more autonomy? Not necessarily.

Elite private schools collect students from a wide area. Some cater to specific ideologies - often religious, which aren't modified to suit the local area and this is regarded as a selling point.

To argue that private schools are more locally controlled is just silly.

Commenter

Evan Hadkins

Location

Sydney

Date and time

June 15, 2012, 11:10AM

Too much of the research quoted is "educational research". This finds a few things to measure and then makes sweeping judgements.The Myschool website is the most overanalysed set of statistics around. However the data in this is treated as some sort of blackbox that is never further analysed.Further all too often there is a certain amount of self-censorship involved in much research. Bureaucrats also hide much data that would be of research interest.Over a period of time, a principal can exert a significant influence in a school both for good and bad.Principals should be given more autonomy, and more pay, but they should also be appointed for fixed terms, say five years, renewable unless there is a large amount of teacher and parental discontent.Principals should be able to select their staff, in the same way that a coach can select his/her team.

Commenter

Mark

Location

Turramurra

Date and time

June 15, 2012, 11:11AM

Look at Finland. Consistently among the best PISA scores in the world. High autonomy- schools run by local government. Only general guidelines for syllabus. Extremely well trained teachers ( all masters degree, top ten percent of state). Can't we just emulate this? ( They decided on this system in 1970, and are now reaping the rewards )